The report addresses the human rights situation in Venezuela by analyzing the impact that the weakening of the country’s democratic institutions has had on those rights. This report is organized around four main areas of focus, which correspond to the IACHR’s core concerns with respect to Venezuela: democratic institutions; social protest and freedom of expression; violence and citizen security; and economic, social, cultural and environmental rights.

It also includes a cross-cutting analysis of the specific harm done to individuals, groups and communities that are at greater risk and are victims of of historical discrimination and exclusion. These include women, children and adolescents, older persons, human rights defenders, persons deprived of liberty and migrants, refugees, or those in a similar situation, among others.

The IACHR report reveals severe restrictions to freedom of expression in Venezuela through censorship of media outlets, attacks on journalists, the criminalization of dissident opinions or of those who disseminate information contrary to government officials’ versions and the punishment of whose who spread what are considered hate messages on the internet. The report also examines the excessive use of firearms and tear-gas bombs against demonstrators, as well as the participation of members of the armed forces in controlling demonstrations.

The Commission expresses its strongest possible rejection of the harsh measures taken by the state in response to social protests, which left hundreds of people dead; thousands arbitrarily detained; allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and sexual violence perpetrated by state agents; and people unjustly tried on criminal charges in military courts.

Compounding the critical situation of democracy and political rights is a socioeconomic crisis characterized by widespread shortages of food, medicine, and medical treatment, materials and supplies. The rights to education and housing have also been seriously impaired. The rates of poverty and extreme poverty in Venezuela are alarming, as are the serious impediments to the exercise of people’s economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, especially for groups that have traditionally faced exclusion and discrimination.

Are there enough reactions before such a tragedy?

Let´s see.

The Peruvian government, backed by 17 Latin American countries, has decided to ask Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro not to attend the Summit of the Americas in April (Peru will host it). Maduro challenged the resolution and threatened to attend “at any cost.”

Elected Chilean President Sebastian Piñera asked Maduro not to attend his inauguration because “he is not welcomed in Chile” (Piñera will take office on March 11).

The overwhelming report of the IACHR, the rejection of 17 countries to the Venezuelan dictatorship, the sanctions determined by the United States and the European Union against Venezuelan officials and economic sanctions too, nothing is enough to relieve the suffering of the Venezuelan people.

Venezuela’s close relation with Iran and Russia essentially protects the dictatorship. Almost 10 percent of the population has fled from the country, mostly to neighboring countries in South America and also to the United States. But proxies and indifference let the tragedy of Venezuela move forward.

Anti-Semitism is not forgotten in the official policies of the Venezuelan regime. A few days ago, Maduro announced that “he has ordered his envoys before U.N. to report the xenophobic campaign against Venezuela in different countries all over the world,” and also “Such campaigns are similar than those made by the Nazis against the Jews.”

It is not the first time that Maduro trivializes the tragedy of the Shoah. Some months ago he also said that “Venezuela is being attacked as Jews were attacked by the Nazis. We are the Jews of the 21stcentury,” he added.

This brutal way of banalizing the Shoah is not the only attack Maduro has recently made against Jews and Israel.

When the United States decided to announce the moving of its embassy to Jerusalem, Maduro made a speech before the Non-Aligned Movement and said that the U.S. decision is “a provocation and a declaration of war against the entire Muslim world, against the good people, one more in decades of ongoing aggression against our beloved historical Palestinian people.”

Several tragedies in history have been possible due to indifference, among other reasons. But indifference is very strong. We can watch it in the Syrian tragedy today. And we can also watch it in Venezuela.​If rogue governments which support those tragedies overcome indifference, hope is very little. So far, indifference prevails.

​Eduardo Kohn, Ph.D., has been the B’nai B’rith executive vice president in Uruguay since 1981 and the B’nai B’rith International Director of Latin American Affairs since 1984. Before joining B'nai B'rith, he worked for the Israeli embassy in Uruguay, the Israel-Uruguay Chamber of Commerce and Hebrew College in Montevideo. He is a published author of “Zionism, 100 years of Theodor Herzl,” and writes op-eds for publications throughout Latin America. He graduated from the State University of Uruguay with a doctorate in diplomacy and international affairs. To view some of his additional content, click here.

In an op-ed for The Times of Israel, Executive Vice President Daniel S. Mariaschin has returned from the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva and he can report: It’s business as usual. Agenda Item 7 persists as the only country-specific item, maligning Israel year-in and year-out, while a number of regimes around the world violate their own people’s human rights. While in Geneva, Mariaschin spoke with a number of foreign representatives and diplomats, urging them to say “no” to Item 7.

It has been business as usual at the U.N. Human Rights Council, meeting in Geneva this month.

​Here’s why it matters.

Notwithstanding the need for urgent attention to such serial abusers as Syria’s Assad regime, which continues to barrel-bomb its own citizens in the midst of a destructive civil war, and Iran, which most certainly vies for the lead in any number of human rights abuses, including the execution of juvenile offenders, Israel is still singled out for special opprobrium.

If this sounds like a broken record, it is. Each year, all countries up for discussion are lumped together into one agenda item, while Israel is always separated out from the rest for individual scrutiny under Item “7” which applies solely to the Jewish state, the only democracy in the Middle East. Subsumed under that item this year are a basket of separate resolutions, as well as six reports. The resolutions, which make no pretence at being objective, hammer Israel for “the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” settlements, human rights abuses in the Golan Heights and a call for Palestinian self-determination.

The special reports include updates on the infamous Goldstone Commission Report, which was written in the wake of the 2009 Gaza war, and which suggested Israel might be guilty of war crimes. Judge Richard Goldstone, who chaired the group which wrote the report, ultimately backed away from its one-sided findings. In the U.N. system, however, vituperation against Israel has a life of its own, so the report lives on.

What does all of this have to do with the real world in 2016? The Middle East is not only in chaos, it is in meltdown mode in Iraq and Syria. Libya has now become the new ISIS target of opportunity. Iran, soon to be flush with cash from the nuclear deal with the P5+1, sends its Revolutionary Guards to Syria, along with its wholly-owned subsidiary Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that has taken over control of Lebanon, to back the Assad regime. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost in this conflict, Christians and Yazidis have been massacred and subject to humiliation, eviction and dispersal, with millions becoming part of the biggest refugee migration in decades.

This situation has received scant attention from a U.N. body “re-formed and reformed” 10 years ago to address real human rights crises. Its 47 members have really done no such thing. It is dominated by countries from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Non-Aligned Movement, and something called the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries, said to represent 50 percent of the world’s population, whose worldview includes protecting many of those countries who are in the first line of human rights abusers.

This session, as a result of membership rotation, the United States is not on the Council. Nevertheless, it has spoken out strongly against the double standard Israel receives at the hands of the members of the body. Neither is Canada, which has been a staunch defender of Israel over the past decade. The EU countries choose not to participate in the debate on Item 7, though several of its member states, critical of Israel, find a way to do so. The EU could act more forcefully against this on-going diplomatic charade, but it refrains from doing that—another example of how its actions often don’t measure up to the values it claims to uphold.

As for the Palestinians it once again proves that, though largely crowded out of the news because of events in the region, their ability to manipulate the U.N. system continues. Whether it was attaining full membership at UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), non-member state status at the General Assembly, or getting its flag flown in front of the U.N. in New York and other U.N. venues (including Geneva), they continue to plug away, not feeling any pressure to return to the negotiating table with Israel. And why should they? The Palestinians feel they have the international community’s blindly supportive wind at their back—even at a time when the Middle East neighborhood in which the Palestinians are based, is imploding.

One European diplomat I met in Geneva, after a spirited discussion about how annual denunciations of Israel only embolden the Palestinians and discourage the Israelis, told me point blank that if they were to say “no’ to Item 7, “the Palestinian door would be closed to us.” My rejoinder was that if the EU—which has often been the Palestinians’ friend in court and which has for years funded the salaries of Palestinian Authority (PA) civil servants—really sought to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue, they would spend their time urging the PA to move to the negotiating table, rather than allow this yearly lacerating of Israel to continue.

So as the Middle East burns, Nero—in this case—the Human Rights Council, fiddles. An aversion to doubling down on real abusers of human rights, and a propensity to let the anti-Israel rhetoric flow in Item 7 and its accompanying reports, speaks to the hypocrisy and emptiness of the Council and the system that has produced it.

Living in a time where, from our smart phone screens we can learn, real time, about the abuses of human rights everywhere, a global conscience is AWOL. Each day it stays that way, real opportunities to help those who suffer, pass. Instead, at the Human Rights Council and elsewhere, there is always time to unfairly castigate Israel.​What a terrible waste.

Daniel S. Mariaschin is the Executive Vice President at B'nai B'rith International, and has spent nearly all of his professional life working on behalf of Jewish organizations. As the organization's top executive officer, he directs and supervises B'nai B'rith programs, activities and staff in the more than 50 countries where B'nai B'rith is organized. He also serves as director of B'nai B'rith's Center for Human Rights and Public Policy (CHRPP). In that capacity, he presents B'nai B'rith's perspective to a variety of audiences, including Congress and the media, and coordinates the center's programs and policies on issues of concern to the Jewish community. To view some of his additional content, Click Here.

Earlier this month, the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) commemorated the 70th anniversary since its founding meeting in 1946. That meeting was held not in the city most associated with the institution, New York, but in London, a city still recovering at the time from heavy Nazi bombardment. Anniversaries are a good time to reflect and analyze about the past, and to look forward to the future. Unfortunately, when it comes to the UNGA, the list of shortcomings is long, while accomplishments are few.

At the outset, it should be noted that the General Assembly played a role in the independence of the State of Israel. The British relinquished to the U.N. the decision of what to do with the British Mandate over pre-state Israel after rising tensions. The UNGA passed a resolution in November1947 that the land should be partitioned into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Yishuv (the pre-state Jewish government) accepted the partition and declared independence for the State of Israel. The Arabs rejected the plan and launched a failed war of annihilation against the fledgling Jewish state. Zionism did not need the U.N. to create a state (indeed, there was already the Yishuv, a pre-state government, and the Haganah, a pre-state army, to create and defend the Jewish state), but the legitimacy granted by the community of nations approving of Jewish self-determination in our ancient homeland was important. Israel was admitted as a U.N. member state in 1949, following approval by the Security Council and General Assembly.

After that point, however, the relationship soured. By the 1960s and 1970s, the U.N. General Assembly became an intensely hostile venue for Israel and the Jewish people. The low-point was the “Zionism is Racism” resolution (see prior blog post on this resolution). The UNGA also created during this period a set of Palestinian propaganda units housed within the U.N. bureaucracy: the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” and the “Division for Palestinian Rights.” These units, whose combined yearly budget is over $6 million, continue to be active participants in the global Palestinian propaganda campaign against Israel from within U.N. Headquarters to this day. In the 1980s the Arab states, along with some Third World dictatorships and Soviet states, tried, unsuccessfully, to remove Israel from the General Assembly.

The 1990s saw the repeal of the “Zionism=Racism” resolution (one of the few resolutions ever to be rescinded) after concerted effort by Israel, the United States., other allies and B’nai B’rith and the Jewish community. Israel’s diplomatic horizons expanded dramatically in the 1990s, thanks in part to the end of the Cold War and the peace process. At the U.N., however, the only tangible benefit was the repeal of the patently absurd “Zionism=Racism” resolution. The number of annual biased resolutions attacking Israel did not decrease. For perspective—there are now around 20 resolutions each year that condemn Israel. A handful of other states (and only the most egregious ones—Iran, Sudan, Syria, North Korea) will be condemned by one resolution apiece.

More On The United Nations:

The General Assembly has called Emergency Special Sessions to discuss urgent issues relating to peace and security only 10 times. Six of these 10 sessions have been called on issues relating to the Middle East. In 1997, the UNGA called the Tenth Emergency Special Session (to condemn Israel for building in Jerusalem), and then decided to suspend the session so that it could be re-opened later. In the years since, it has been re-opened 13 times to issue one-sided condemnations of Israel for counter-terrorism activities during an onslaught of Palestinian suicide bombings in the early 2000s and rocket attacks. Needless to say, the Palestinian violence that necessitated measures such as Israel’s security barrier and counter-terrorism operations was routinely ignored.

The situation at the UNGA in the last 10 years is very serious, but not utterly bleak. The General Assembly passed, 60 years after the fact, resolutions on Holocaust remembrance and Holocaust denial, and created a program within the United Nations to educate about the Holocaust throughout the world. The assembly also passed, by wide margins, for the first time two Israeli-initiated resolutions on agricultural technology and entrepreneurship. A series of Israeli diplomats have also been elected by their peers to important positions at the General Assembly, a recognition that diplomats recognize that Israel has contributions to make at the U.N. beyond the conflict.

Overall, however, the persistent anti-Israel obsession continues to plague the General Assembly, which radiates outwards throughout the U.N. system since the assembly controls the budgeting and prioritization of issues at the U.N. The UNGA also is the parent body of the discredited Human Rights Council, and conducts elections for seats at the Human Rights Council, Security Council and other bodies. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and do not carry significant weight in international law when compared to Security Council resolutions, but we must not fall into the trap of believing that because of this that the UNGA is completely irrelevant.

The UNGA gives those who are hostile to the existence of the State of Israel a global platform from which they try to legitimize their hateful bigotry. Israel and other democracies engaged in counter-terrorism efforts will continue to feel negative effects from the endemic bias and corruption of the General Assembly until the many nations who are not hopelessly anti-Israel, but vote against Israel in order to avoid making waves in the powerful regional groups, stand up and refuse to take part in the relentless campaign against Israel at the UNGA.

Oren Droriis the Program Officer for United Nations Affairs at B’nai B’rith International where he supports advocacy and programming efforts that advance B’nai B’rith’s goals at the U.N., which include: defending Israel, combating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and promoting global human rights and humanitarian concerns. He received a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Minnesota in 2004 and an M.A. in International Relations from the University of Chicago in 2006. To view some of his additional content,Click Here.

​The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has a real, biased treatment of issues relating to Israel. The light it shines on the Jewish state is particularly lopsided in comparison with talk and action on actual pressing international human rights tragedies such as those in Syria, Yemen, Iran and Sudan.

The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel—Agenda Item 7—titled: “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.”

Israel is the only country on earth that has been singled out and it is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda. A number of other countries notorious for their human rights abuses are included as part of the general debate, if they are mentioned at all.

The HRC doesn’t even meet its own standards for judging human rights issues. Saudi Arabia, for example, now heads a key HRC panel that selects top officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations. Additionally the U.N. committee that credentials NGOs and human rights groups includes serial human rights abuser Iran.

The HRC also has among its elected members human rights abusers like Qatar and Venezuela, but the singling out is exclusive for Israel.

At the end of September the HRC devoted a whole session to Item 7—meaning a meeting was called with the sole purpose of blasting Israel.

The Syrian delegate said that his country “is concerned” about the situation in “Palestine and other occupied territories.” But no country at the HRC stood up to ask Syria if the world should be seriously concerned about the millions of refugees and thousands of killings that have resulted from four years of civil war. In Syria, there isn’t a shred of respect for human rights to be found in any corner of the country. But the HRC is such a sham that it opens the floor for human rights violators, rather than doing something to stop them.

In this context of hypocrisy, several South American countries had the floor during the aforementioned Israel bashing session.

Perpetual demonizers of Israel like Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba, and democracies like Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, also blasted Israel.

Overall the session was, as usual, shameful. There were long hours full of rhetoric mixed with vitriol and incitement against Israel, singled out by the infamous Item 7.

What has happened two weeks later when Palestinian terrorists have already killed seven Israeli civilians and wounded about 30, by stabbing and shooting men, women and children?

Has the HRC called for an urgent meeting? Of course not.

Which country has publicly condemned the wave of terror created by incitement coming from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority? Among South American countries, only one: Uruguay.

The Uruguayan government not only condemned the wave of terror against Israeli civilians, but also condemned “those who praise as heroic, murder and killing”

Among HRC and the United Nations itself, Uruguay has been a courageous voice in the desert.

In the particular situation that Israel is living today, under the terrorist attacks, general silence has been the pattern

Democracies should be unified in fighting for freedom and respect for human rights. Unfortunately this is not the rule in most South American countries when it comes to Israel.

It is a slap to history and a tradition of friendship between South America and Israel, which started in 1948, and has been sadly reversing in the last decade.

Eviatar Manor, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva

Related Reading:

Eduardo Kohn, Ph.D has been the B’nai B’rith executive vice president in Uruguay since 1981 and the B’nai B’rith International director of Latin American affairs since 1984. Before joining B'nai B'rith, he worked for the Israeli embassy in Uruguay, the Israel-Uruguay Chamber of Commerce and Hebrew College in Montevideo. He is a published author of “Zionism, 100 years of Theodor Herzl,” and writes op-eds for publications throughout Latin America. He graduated from the State University of Uruguay with a doctorate in diplomacy and international affairs. To view some of his additional content, Click Here.

A recent international conference in Warsaw, Poland provided an opportunity to take inventory of the struggle against anti-Semitism. While the U.S. and European governments have made progress in addressing the problem, evidence of anti-Semitism’s persistence is in ready supply.

2014 saw a breakthrough at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a multilateral organization charged with, among other priorities, combating anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance. For the first time in more than a decade of tackling modern incarnations of Judeophobia, the 57 governments that make up the OSCE codified core principles of the fight against anti-Semitism in a high-level ministerial declaration. “We reject and condemn manifestations of anti-Semitism, intolerance, and discrimination against Jews,” the document intoned.

2014, meanwhile, was also a year that saw a spike in anti-Semitic incidents across Europe and the former Soviet Union. A wave of anti-Israel demonstrations has swept the OSCE region in 2014 and 2015; these gatherings typically have featured blatantly anti-Semitic themes and often have turned violent. Attacks on Jewish individuals and institutions have increased in frequency and intensity, as the landscape from Belgium to Bulgaria, Germany to Greece, Holland to Hungary, and Ireland to Italy has witnessed violence against Jewish targets. This spread of hatred has been accompanied by a corrosion of the public discourse with respect to Jews and Israel and has left European Jewry fearful for their safety and security.

The rise of anti-Jewish hatred also has resulted in a proliferation of anti-Semitic propaganda, much of which is directed against the State of Israel. Tragically, the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish state has become a daily occurrence, as Israel’s enemies repeatedly accuse it of being a Nazi-like occupier and an apartheid state that disenfranchises the Palestinians. Falsehoods about Israel are repeated so often that they become widely accepted in the popular culture and sometimes impact government policy. The effort by Israel’s relentless critics to denigrate the Jewish state is not only evidence that anti-Semitism is alive and well 70 years after the Holocaust—this new variation of the world’s oldest social illness actually poses a security threat to the Jewish state by intensifying its international isolation.

Against this backdrop, an OSCE human dimension implementation meeting that B’nai B’rith attended in Warsaw this month underscored that while much has been done to fight anti-Semitism in the past decade or more, much work remains. The need for practical and effective strategies to combat and defeat this pathology is still crucial.​B’nai B’rith’s recommendations to the Warsaw gathering included a call for OSCE member-states to affirm commitments made at the landmark 2004 Berlin Conference on Anti-Semitism— and reiterated in last year’s ministerial declaration—and assess the implementation of those commitments. B’nai B’rith also urged:

Member-states must fulfill their reporting requirements with respect to hate crimes data. Far too few of the 57 governments have done so until now.

Governments should widely promote, within the OSCE, the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency’s comprehensive working definition of anti-Semitism and the U.S. State Department’s Fact Sheet on anti-Semitism. It is crucial that governments and other institutions understand how to identify anti-Semitism in order to properly combat it.

The OSCE must enhance funding for the tolerance and non-discrimination unit of its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. The TND unit has now become a fixed and integral part of the OSCE’s work in combating hatred. We must enable them to sustain and expand their critical activities, which include educational programs on anti-Semitism in more than a dozen countries.

Finally, we must strongly reinforce the crucial principle declared at the 2004 Berlin Conference—that no political position, cause, or grievance can ever justify anti-Semitism—and make clear that the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish state is often none other than a pretext for the hatred of Jews themselves.

Related Reading:

Eric Fusfield, Esq. has been B’nai B’rith International’s director of legislative affairs since 2003 and deputy director of the B’nai B’rith International Center for Human Rights and Public Policy since 2007. He previously served as assistant director of European affairs at the American Jewish Committee. He holds a B.A. from Columbia University in history; an M.St. in modern Jewish studies from Oxford University; and a J.D./M.A. from American University in law and international affairs. To view some of his additional content, Click Here

​As another year’s U.N. General Assembly’s General Debate session has recently wrapped up, B’nai B’rith has concluded our annual round of meetings with presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers at the sidelines of the UNGA session.

This week of meetings gives B’nai B’rith leadership access to world leaders and an opportunity to engage in advocacy on core issues of importance to B’nai B’rith, most critically: the safety and security of Israel and the Jewish people throughout the world, and our concerns about the Iranian nuclear deal and Iran’s continued support for terrorism.

In addition to meetings that B’nai B’rith requests on our own, B’nai B’rith also has the privilege of coordinating a number of Jewish organizations seeking joint UNGA meetings. B’nai B’rith is able to do so because of a number of factors.

First, B’nai B’rith has a long-standing position as the only Jewish organization with a full-time office dedicated solely to U.N. affairs, which allows us the opportunities to engage year-round with the diplomats in New York who arrange the meetings and the schedules for the visiting dignitaries.

Second, B’nai B’rith is headquartered in Washington, D.C., an important diplomatic post for all countries, whose diplomats are usually close to the presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers in their capitals. Third, B’nai B’rith has a wide reach, as an organization with members and supporters around the world who can follow up on requests in their home countries.The importance of these meetings cannot be understated. It is an indispensible component of B’nai B’rith’s U.N. work each year. These meetings offer B’nai B’rith leaders a chance, in some cases the only chance for that year, to engage directly with the leadership of many countries, and in a rather short period of time.

These meetings may not always produce tangible effects because we are a non-governmental organization (NGO), not a state. So, we cannot sign trade agreements or defense deals. Our role is to hold these governments to account, to advocate for the issues of top concern to the members of our organization and to engage in constructive dialogue with the leaders of states large and small.

Often, those issues include the threat posed to Israel, the Middle East and the world-at-large by Iran; terrorism; unilateral Palestinian actions that damage prospects for peace; and the ever-present and growing danger of anti-Semitism. Sometimes the discussion topics are more locally-focused, such as Holocaust-era restitution negotiations in countries that have not adequately addressed this issue.

​Regardless of whether the meeting is friendly or business-like or even tense, though, each meeting has value, for B’nai B’rith and for our partners on the other side of the table. Our interlocutors do not necessarily always agree with our positions, but both sides benefit from the exchange of views.

Each September, appropriately, usually at the dawn of a new year on the Jewish calendar, B’nai B’rith reaches out to the world to engage in respectful and meaningful dialogue on pressing issues that confront the nations. And, once September passes, B’nai B’rith’s efforts to engage diplomatically continues throughout the year in New York, Washington and many other locations throughout the world.

Related Readings:

Oren Droriis the Program Officer for United Nations Affairs at B’nai B’rith International where he supports advocacy and programming efforts that advance B’nai B’rith’s goals at the U.N., which include: defending Israel, combating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and promoting global human rights and humanitarian concerns. He received a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Minnesota in 2004 and an M.A. in International Relations from the University of Chicago in 2006. To view some of his additional content,Click Here.

For anyone who has served in the Israeli army or who has children in active service, the viral video from an August 28 altercation between a lone Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier and a swarm of Palestinian women and children pummeling, clawing and biting him in an eventually successful effort to free 12-year-old Muhammad Tamimi—who he intended to arrest for throwing stones at troops—was emotionally wrenching.

Having just arrived that morning back to a sweltering Israel after a holiday in pleasantly cool Norway and pastoral Scotland, the images of this soldier left on his own for long minutes by his comrades as he tries to shake off the assailants—aided by some foreign instigators—while he is filmed from every possible angle by multiple still and video cameramen—left me with a sinking feeling.

This leads one to ask what can be done to better protect soldiers caught in this situation, and what best practices can be employed to counter such Palestinian-initiated, staged clashes, while unfriendly cameras are whirring and snapping away in a game of gotcha employed by much of the media covering the territories.

Indeed the staged—and therefore predictable—nature of the incident was recognized even by the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, two British newspapers that are quick to tar and feather Israel at every turn, usually without looking back, that were forced to change their initial critical headlines and even to remove the report entirely from their web site when it became clear that the soldiers' assailants are known provocateurs, particularly his teenage sister Ahed and their radical parents.

Some Israeli commentators such as Nachum Barnea in Yedioth/YNet used the incident to bemoan again the debilitating impact the "occupation" is having on the State of Israel and its young soldiers; others see an entirely different message in the images—that the fearlessness with which Palestinian women and children accost an Israeli soldier armed with an assault rifle proves that they know full well that even when being hit, wrestled to the ground and nearly disarmed, he will not use his weapon, debunking claims of widespread brutality.

A look at longer YouTube posts of the incident tells a more nuanced story, still undoubtedly partial and skewered: Nebi Salah, where the encounter took place, has been a focus of violent Palestinian demonstrations for a number of years. Fridays are their favorite days for instigators to drum up a few women and children, perhaps with the promise of monetary remuneration, to march down the short access road out of the village toward a spring over which the village and a nearby Jewish settlement, Halamish, have been feuding for years.The video shows a handful of Palestinian young men using the children and women as cover as they target IDF troops in the distance using potentially injurious high-velocity slings. The troops respond with tear gas as the Palestinians use their slings also to throw the canisters back at the troops.Eventually, the troops advance uphill on the group when the 12-year old is caught by the soldier. These are scenes that have repeated themselves almost every Friday (I was witness to one about three years ago), which have raised renewed calls to train and deploy for just these kinds of situations.

That incident at Nebi Salah seems to have been a teaser for what has snowballed in recent weeks into a significant spurt of Palestinian stone and Molotov cocktail throwing in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, resulting already in one death of innocent Israeli motorist Alexander Levlovitz in Jerusalem, injury to a woman whose car overturned in Samaria and damage to cars, buses, train carriages and homes.A flashpoint of the disturbances is the Temple Mount where both the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas have been agitating for violence in an apparent attempt to disrupt Rosh Hashanah and traditional Jewish mass pilgrimage to the Western Wall during the Jewish High Holidays and to revive attention to the Palestinian issue that has been overshadowed by events in Syria and the European refugee crisis.Just weeks ago, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas called for violence by praising 'martyrs' spilling blood in Jerusalem to prevent Jews from entering the Temple Mount, saying, "the Al-Aqsa is ours...and they (Jews) have no right to defile it with their filthy feet." Israeli officials have reportedly blamed Turkey for hosting senior Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri who is responsible for remotely organizing terrorist attacks and funding the organization's incitement of Palestinian youth to attack Israelis.Granted the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, has been the focus of much more Jewish interest in recent years, stoking general Muslim hysteria going back nearly a century about imaginary Jewish plots to undermine the mosques there. But this is a poor excuse.In recent comments, Minister of Internal Security Gilad Erdan has accused Islamic rioters of barricading themselves in the Al Aqsa Mosque and turning Temple Mount into a "terror warehouse," stockpiled with makeshift bombs and rocks to use on police and Jewish worshipers in the Western Wall plaza below. He vowed to meticulously maintain the status quo under which all those who wish to visit Temple Mount will be allowed to do so.In a rare emergency Friday meeting a few weeks ago, the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee authorized the call-up of 10,000 reserve Border Policemen in order to quell the violence. Other measures that are being considered are imposing a 100,000 NIS bond on the parents of all minors convicted of stone throwing that will be returned only if the child commits no further offenses for a year, reintroduction of the less-lethal Ruger small caliber gun for use by security forces and tighter restrictions on entry onto the mount by Palestinian agitators and lawbreakers. Recent restrictions, that permitted only men over 40 to enter, seem to have worked the trick and the crowd dispersed without incident after noon prayers.True to form, Arab countries, even those Israel maintains close diplomatic relations with—Egypt and Jordan—and those who, it was thought, might be silent allies in the future against their common enemy Iran—were quick to join the choir condemning only Israel.The U.N. Security Council played into this attitude the week before last, passing a unanimous statement that failed even to mention Palestinian violence and referred to the Temple Mount only by its Arabic name. Israel’s United Nations Ambassor Ron Prosor reacted aptly to the Security Council statement saying that “When the Palestinians set the Temple Mount ablaze, Mahmoud Abbas fuels the fire, and the Security Council fans the flames, it is a recipe for a regional explosion.”The coming days will tell whether the measures instituted by the Israeli government will quell the unrest that put a general damper on the Jewish High Holiday spirit and caused untold pain to the family of Alexander Levlovitz, and other injured Israelis. Short of a miracle, the only choice left to Prime Minister Netanyahu is to meticulously uphold the status quo that allows Muslims to pray and non-Muslims to visit what is potentially the most explosive site in the world, bar none.Just in recent days, a drive by shooting killed two young parents in front of their four children. In another attack, two Jewish men were murdered by Palestinian terrorists and a teenager was seriously wounded. With Palestinian terror attacks on the rise, Israel’s military needs to ensure it has appropriate responses in place.

Alan Schneider is the director of B’nai B’rith World Center in Jerusalem, which serves as the hub of B'nai B'rith International activities in Israel. The World Center is the key link between Israel and B'nai B'rith members and supporters around the world. To view some of his additional content, Click Here.

Seemingly lost in the debate over the Iran nuclear deal is any focus at all on that country’s horrendous human rights record. In choosing to negotiate only on the nuclear program, the P5+1 (the United States plus China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and Germany) lost an opportunity to exert leverage on Tehran’s serial human rights abuses, as well as its support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.

It was only in 2011 that the UN Human Rights Council approved the appointment of a special rapporteur on Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, a respected diplomat from the Maldives. From the Iranian regime’s takeover in 1979, it has been a serial abuser of human rights: of political opponents, women, the LGBT community, journalists, adherents of the Baha’i religion and others. It has done so with impunity, unmoved by international exposure of its brazen abridgment of basic freedoms.

This month in Geneva, the Human Rights Council will open one of its thrice-yearly six-week sessions. With the signing of the nuclear deal and the UN Security Council’s endorsement of the agreement, the rehabilitation of Iran in international forums has begun. A number of European states have already embarked on a headlong rush to do business there. Notwithstanding remaining sanctions (for five years) on the acquisition of advanced conventional weapons, it is believed Tehran already is anticipating an armaments buying spree. And Iran will surely bolster its backing (and direction) of Hezbollah and other terrorist proxies.

The forthcoming session at the Human Rights Council should give us a good indication of whether or not Iran will get a pass on its human rights record. Already, some diplomats are reported to have urged “giving Iran some space” on the issue, now that it has agreed to the nuclear deal. That would be bad news for Shaheed, whose 2014 report on human rights in Iran runs 81 pages.

His report, which includes a detailed annex of individual cases, makes for a powerful charge sheet. He notes that there were 753 individuals executed in Iran in 2014, the highest number in 12 years. They included 25 women, and there were 53 public executions. This, while the Tehran regime was negotiating the nuclear deal with the P5+1 powers.

Absurdity is the rule: Shaheed cites the case of a death sentence pronounced on Mohamed Ali Yehari, an expert in alternative medical theories, for “corruption on earth.”

He was originally sentenced to five years for “committing blasphemy.”

Under the category "reprisals against individuals for contact with human rights organizations and U.N. human rights mechanisms," 15 persons were prosecuted or “faced intimidation.”

​The report covers countless examples of arbitrary detention of journalists, lawyers and student activists. Four leaders of the failed 2009 Green Revolution remain under house arrest. Shaheed cites the cases of 30 journalists who were detained on charges of “national security crimes” and “propaganda against the system” and “spreading falsehoods.” Five privately-owned religious TV stations were closed down for “working illegally for satellite TV stations in the United States and Great Britain.”

Last November, 24 Kurdish prisoners went on hunger strikes to protest inadequate medical treatment; they had been arrested on “national security” charges for commemorating International Mother Tongue Language Day. From the outset, followers of the Baha’i faith have been a special focus of social stigmatization. The report notes that 135 Baha’i remain jailed for their religious beliefs. Last year, a Baha’i cemetery was desecrated; to date, no perpetrators have been apprehended. Burials of Baha’is have been delayed or proscribed.

Christians have often been a target in Iran. On Christmas Day last year, nine persons were arrested for celebrating the holiday in the town of Rudehen.

In response to complaints of discrimination against the gay community, the Shaheed report notes that “the government responded by stating its total rejection of homosexual behaviors.”

Violence against women and juvenile offenders is a staple of the human rights abuse catalog: Shaheed cites nearly hundreds of acid attacks on women, many of them for wearing “improper clothing.” No arrests in these cases were reported.

Even with this shameless and pervasive record of rights abuse, one would have thought that Tehran would have released the four Americans it is holding (Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian; Saeed Abedini, a Christian pastor from Idaho; Amir Hekmati, a dual citizen and Marine Corps veteran; and Robert Levinson, a US government contractor). The temerity of the Iranian rulers seemingly knows no bounds. Not to have made their release a condition for agreeing to the nuclear deal is one of the major criticisms of its opponents.

Addressing Iranian human rights abuses must be made a visible priority by the P5+1 and others in the community of democracies. Placing Ahmed Shaheed’s reports in the circular file and not acting more forcefully to isolate Iran on these issues will only embolden a regime already brimming with hubris over the nuclear deal.

"Giving Iran some space" is surely the wrong approach.

Related Readings:

Daniel S. Mariaschin is the Executive Vice President at B'nai B'rith International, and has spent nearly all of his professional life working on behalf of Jewish organizations. As the organization's top executive officer, he directs and supervises B'nai B'rith programs, activities and staff in the more than 50 countries where B'nai B'rith is organized. He also serves as director of B'nai B'rith's Center for Human Rights and Public Policy (CHRPP). In that capacity, he presents B'nai B'rith's perspective to a variety of audiences, including Congress and the media, and coordinates the center's programs and policies on issues of concern to the Jewish community. To view some of his additional content, Click Here.

English Version:

Adriana Camisar

A lot has been said about the unfair treatment that the State of Israel receives at the United Nations. But very few people know in depth the causes of this phenomenon and the magnitude of the problem.

While there are numerous agencies within the United Nations that display a clear anti-Israel bias, it is very important to understand the role played by the U.N. General Assembly in financing and maintaining a powerful anti-Israel propaganda apparatus.

As Ambassador Richard Schifter—with whom B’nai B’rith International has been working for quite some time now—explains, every year, the General Assembly adopts about 70 resolutions by roll-call vote. About 25 percent of these are resolutions directed against Israel. Most General Assembly resolutions are mere "recommendations" with no binding effect and, therefore, do not have major practical consequences. But there are three anti-Israel resolutions that do have operational consequences and are, therefore, extremely important.

These resolutions are the ones that renew, year after year, the funding authorization and the mandate for the following entities:

The Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (DPR)

The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP)

The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinians and Other Arabs in the Occupied Territories (SCIIHRP)

The Palestinians are the only people in the world that have their own division within the Department of Political Affairs of the U.N. Secretariat (In general, divisions deal with specific political topics on a worldwide basis or have responsibility for a geographic region. For example, there is an Americas Division, a Europe Division, and even a Middle East and West Asia Division.

The Division for Palestinian Rights serves as the secretariat of CEIRPP. Even though its staff serves inside the U.N. Secretariat, which is headed by the U.N. Secretary-General, its activities are “de facto” led by the operatives who direct the work of CEIRPP.

CEIRPP consists of the ambassadors of 26 U.N. member States. Latin America is represented by Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The committee organizes four annual conferences. The last two Latin American conferences were held in Caracas (in 2013) and Quito (in 2014).

The organizers of these conferences always invite local opinion leaders, government officials, NGOs and—of course—the media. They usually also invite at least one speaker that is both Jewish and highly critical of Israel, in order to give greater "legitimacy" to these meetings. In each of these meetings, Israel is demonized and characterized as racist. The Palestinians are described as victims and absolved from any responsibility in the conflict. The ties between the Jewish people and their ancestral land are totally ignored, and Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is denied.

The Special Committee (SCIIHRP) holds annual hearings in the Middle East, in which testimonies against Israel are heard, and then publishes a report denouncing Israel for these alleged human rights violations.

All this anti-Israel propaganda is done in the name of the United Nations, is funded by the United Nations and disseminated through the United Nations public information system.

Now let's examine the role that Latin America plays in maintaining this harmful propaganda apparatus.

At the 2014 session of the General Assembly, the votes of the Latin American countries divided as follows:

Voting in favor of the three resolutions: Brazil, Chile, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Bolivia voted for SCIIHRP and was absent when DPR and CEIRPP were put to a vote, but its representatives said that, if present, they would have voted in favor of both, as in previous years.

Voting in favor of two (CEIRPP and DPR) and abstaining on one (SCIIHRP): Argentina, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico and Uruguay.

Abstaining on the three resolutions: Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay and Peru.

Abstaining on two (CEIRPP and DPR) and voting against one (SCIIHRP): Panama.

With regard to the first group, the following countries: Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela, automatically vote in favor of most anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations. This is due to their governments’ geopolitical orientation and their strong "anti-Americanism.” We cannot have any hope for anything different unless there is a change of regime in these states. With respect to Cuba, the rapprochement with the United States gives us a small glimmer of hope, but it is not realistic to expect palpable changes in the near future.

Brazil and Chile also vote consistently against Israel, though their reasons are slightly different. Perhaps the most important reason for Brazil is that its foreign ministry hopes to win a permanent seat for Brazil at the U.N. Security Council (in the unlikely event that the council is enlarged to admit new members). For this, they need the support of countries that oppose the United States and Israel at the United Nations. As for Chile, it has an important population of Palestinian descent, which has become quite active politically in recent years and seems to have much influence in this area.

With regard to the Dominican Republic, its voting pattern changed when it joined PetroCaribe (the oil alliance led by Venezuela), so it can be assumed that its votes were heavily influenced by the Venezuelan government. Therefore, now that Venezuela’s aid is fading, perhaps there is an opportunity for change.

With respect to the countries of the second group, we cannot expect any change in Argentina, at least with the current government. But perhaps there is a chance in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico and Uruguay, all countries that maintain a cordial relationship both with the United States and Israel, regardless of their political orientation. Mexico's case is particularly interesting because its foreign ministry also aims to obtain a U.N. Security Council seat, if or when the council gets enlarged (Even when Mexico's chances of beating Brazil as the favorite Latin American candidate, are extremely remote).

As for the countries that abstained in all three of these important resolutions and, therefore, belong to the third group, perhaps there is a chance to get some of them to vote against at least one of these very harmful resolutions.

The anti-Israel propaganda apparatus that works at the United Nations is very powerful and will not be easy task to try to dismantle it. However, it is not impossible. While there are countries that consistently vote against Israel for ideological reasons (either because they want to oppose the United States or because they hold anti-Israel views), in many cases this animosity does not exist or is less intense and, therefore, there is an opportunity for change.

Often, U.N. ambassadors do not receive precise instructions from their governments on how to vote on these resolutions and, therefore, they yield to pressure from their colleagues at the United Nations. In these cases, it is extremely important to alert their governments about the importance of these resolutions.

An effort both from Israel and the United States to reach out to some of these countries is essential to achieve positive change. But beyond that, the action of the local Jewish communities—and the alliances they can build with other sectors of society—could certainly help persuade these countries to vote in a more balanced and fair way.

Related Readings:

Adriana Camisar, is an attorney by training who holds a graduate degree in international law and diplomacy from The Fletcher School (Tufts University). She has been B'nai B'rith International Assistant Director for Latin American Affairs since late 2008, and Special Advisor on Latin American Affairs since 2013, when she relocated to Argentina, her native country. Prior to joining B'nai B'rith International, she worked as a research assistant to visiting Professor Luis Moreno Ocampo (former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court), at Harvard University; interned at the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs; worked at a children's rights organization in San Diego, CA; and worked briefly as a research assistant to the Secretary for Legal Affairs at the Organization of American States (OAS). To view some of her additional content, Click Here.

Over the past year, human rights advocates and policy experts alike have warned of the growing plight of refugees fleeing the humanitarian crisis triggered in the Middle East. And over the past few weeks, headlines finally began to reflect this desperate reality.

Stories on the human toll of the refugee crisis abound. Laith Majid in tears clutching his two children just off the Greek Island of Kos. Drowned three-year-old Aylan Kurdi on the shores of Turkey. A truckload of more than 70 refugees die of heatstroke in Austria.

The number of displaced people in the world today is the highest number since World War II at 60 million people. Currently there are four million Syrian refugees who have escaped war and dire living conditions and an additional seven million Syrian citizens currently displaced within their country’s borders. The European Union’s (EU) border agency has said more than half a million migrants have arrived at the EU's borders this year, a massive influx nearly double the number from 2014, with origins ranging throughout Africa and the Middle East.

Just last week, President Barack Obama pledged a commitment for the United States to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees next year, up from 1,000 this past year.But refugee advocates and some members of Congress say taking in an additional 10,000 refugees does not go far enough toward addressing the crisis at hand. The 10,000 refugees would come almost exclusively from the backlog of Syrians who have already applied for asylum, and not those individuals fleeing now.

Indeed such a commitment is fewer people than what some other countries have pledged to accept or have already accepted. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced that Germany intends to take in up to 800,000 people who have fled war and persecution, and Canada has committed to 11,300,according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Still, most European countries have not yet committed to absorb refugees, let alone at such impressive numbers.A dialogue has also been triggered in the global Jewish community about what our organized reaction should be, particularly in light of our own history as refugees seeking asylum from anti-Semitism. Certainly the treatment of migrants evokes, in many, memories of Europe’s darkest hour.

Hundreds of refugees surrounded by armed police officers and razor-wire fences and imagery of asylum seekers in the Czech Republic led off a train where identification numbers were written on their hands, fueled with rising trends of nationalism appear to present Europe’s worst humanitarian crisis since World War II.

To be sure, the migrant crisis is no genocide. Some refugees are Christians fleeing religion-based persecution, but many others are those simply caught in a terrible crossfire of civil war, starvation, chlorine gassing, and barrel bombing, who seek refuge. But it is our shared history of persecution and flight that compels us to act.

Tackling a crisis of this magnitude is going to require the world coming together to not only open borders to more asylum seekers, but also to increase humanitarian assistance to Syria and its neighbors in crisis and push for a political solution to the war. An emergency meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers will convene tomorrow to address a comprehensive and united EU response to the migration crisis. This is indeed the moment for the international community to gather and create solutions addressing both the immediate and long-term needs created by these challenges, including addressing housing, feeding and clothing the refugees, instituting a practical security screening process, while also establishing a division of responsibility for quota intake of refugees for the foreseeable future.At this time of year, our global Jewish community is celebrating the high holidays. Although a joyous occasion, Rosh Hashanah is a time for reflection. In this week between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we should pause to reflect on this global crisis, and commit our resolution to tackling the humanitarian challenges.

As Hillel’s teaching reminds us, the Torah commands we should love the stranger in our midst. During this important window of reflection, for now and the future, we pray for a good year to come not only for ourselves and our families but also for all those fleeing persecution in search of safety and freedom, and resolve to work toward eradicating their suffering.